The Russellville Democrat., 1887-06-01
THIRTEENTH YEAR.---NO. 19.
INTERESTING DECISION.
Persons Bitten by Dogs Entitled to Recove
 Damages From Their Owners.

Damages From Their Owners.
 In the State 0s. M'Dermott the New Jersey Supreme Court holds that per son bitten by dog may recover dam- ages from the owner, upon evidence that the dog, with the knowledge of the owner, had mischieyous tendency to bite, whether in anger or not In either case the persons bitten would suffer injury. A mischievous propen- sity, from which injury is the natural result. In the case of Hudson Us. Rob erts, 6 Exch. 699, it appears that the plaintiff was walking in the street wearing a red handkerchief The bull of defendant, ordinarily gentle and quiet, and not known to have gored any person previously, was being driven along the street when he attacked and gored the plaintiff. The defendant said that the red handkerchief did it, and that he knew the bull would run at any thing red The plaintiff re- covered. The bull had no hostile feel ing against the man he injured, and no disposition to gore mankind, but be- cause of his mischievous propensity to rush at a red object, of which his own CT knew, it was held that when he caused injury to plaintiff. through that propensity, his owner should pay dam- ages. A domestieated bear may hug man until his ribs be broken. This may be the mode adopted by the animal to man:fes' his affection; yet if he had on other occasions previously shown his affection in that way, causing injury, and his owner knew of such propensity, the owner would have to pay damages caused by breaking the mans ribs. It is true that the bear is classed with animals fer@ nature, and that the presumption, in such case, would be that although domestieated. the animal had relapsed into his wild habits, yet although the presumption on the question of scienter would be against the owner, he might be able to prove that the habit of embracing persons did not proceed from the savage nature of the bear, but, under the influence of tlN llOill d dltNtiOiI. But this proof would be held to be mis- chievous, because hurtful to those who were the objects of the bears affection. In the case of Oaks gs. Spaultling, 40 Vt 947 it appeared that Mrs. Oaks was driving cows home from pasture, when the ram of Spaulding attacked and in- jured her. It was shown that the ram had propensity to butt mankind, and that the defendant knew it, but it did not appear whether the previous but tings by the ram proceeded from an ugly disposition, or from the exuber- anee of a playful spirit; yet it was held that the defendant was liable. It did not cure the hurt nor assuage the pain of the woman to be told that the ram. when he butted her, was only in one of his accustomed sportive moods. It might have been fun for the ram, but it was hurtful to Mrs. Oaks. It was a mischievous propensity, whether pro ceeding from ugliness of temper or from good nature, which, if known to the owner of the ram, made him liable for damages resulting from such propen- sity. There is no doubt that in cases of animals not naturally inclined to do mischief previous mischievous propen- sity must be shown, and the Scie7ater clearly established. The gist of the action is not the keeping of the animal, but the keeping with knowledge of mis- chievous propensity, whether proceed ing from a savage disposition or not. The conclusion is that the plaintiff be- low having shown by his proof that on several previous occasions the dog in question had bitten various persons on the hand, with knowledge of the de fendant, he was entitled to recover, even if the habitd not proceed from feroeious nature, but was the result of mischievous propensity.-M r. Chris tian Aduocate.